Why, why, why is context never supplied? Oh, right, because it might ruin a perfectly good (and preferred) story. In this case, the NeoCon paymasters of your MSM want you to be terrified of Iran. Likewise, the ever-powerful Israeli lobby. Thus, you are instructed to assume the world is near its end because Iran has tested the terrifying Shahab-3 missile.
But what is it, exactly? It’s a medium-range ballistic missile with a payload capacity of around 700 kg (1,500 lb). It has an operational range of 2,100 km (1,300 mi), meaning it can deliver 1,500lb of whatever about 1,300 miles away. Now, it’s true that payload capacity likely includes highly sophisticated warheads like the those found in a Trident II MIRV. But nobody on this Earth thinks Iran’s nuclear program is anywhere near that level of sophistication. Hell, the United States worries that it’s not near (or soon will lose) that level of sophistication any more. Instead, Iran is (most likely) busily developing Fat Man. It weighed 10,000 pounds and required a modified B-29 for delivery. Even assuming they can halve the weight of a similar design, you’re still at 5x what they can lift off the ground. To continue the rather apt WWII theme, the Shahab-3 is really more consistent with the B-17; it had a range of about 800 mi with a bomb-load of 4,500 lb (2,000 kg). Oh, wait, that’s still almost 4x the payload capacity of this missile. How about a well-regarded, frequently ship-based fighter/bomber of the same era? Well, at 2000lb we’re at least getting close.
It’s also worth noting that the damage potential from a North Korean high-explosive carrying missile of similar capabilities is considered so minor that:
As a result, Washington and Seoul have not placed the highest priority on North Korean short-range missiles in their negotiating strategies
Ultimately, we’re talking about a relatively low-payload, unguided missile. Even if they could rain them down like arrows on Tel Aviv, the damage would be scattered and relatively minor. Think: SCUDs. Or, to close the loop: V2s.
But: more to the point. What, exactly, is the New York Times providing here? Internet, TV, and radio can give us quick-hitting, context-free “OMG Iran is going to kill us all!!!!!!!” stories much more quickly (and probably more cheaply) than can the NYT or any other dead-tree news source. Why in the world do they spend time and resources aping that? To be first? Please. For print media to survive, it needs to be better than this; if any paper-source were churning out indispensable, immediate context and analysis the day after the news initially broke, with long-form analysis a day or two later, don’t you think they’d be just slightly more relevant? And infinitely better for our National Discourse? Instead, they provide us this. More of the same. Truly, a national treasure…
Lemkin 